Case: Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

8:11-cv-00301 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Feb. 22, 2011

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires the government to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before it may conduct any domestic electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information. The warrant applications are made ex parte and must include a sworn statement by a federal officer of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the government's belief that the target of surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a f…

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires the government to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before it may conduct any domestic electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information. The warrant applications are made ex parte and must include a sworn statement by a federal officer of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the government's belief that the target of surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Once a FISC judge receives a warrant application, the judge can order approval of the surveillance only if the judge finds that there is probable cause to believe that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Because the orders only authorize surveillance up to 90 days, the government must file an application for an extension that meets the same requirements as the initial warrant application and obtain a renewal order from the FISC for continued surveillance. An aggrieved person, which is defined as "a person who is the target of an electronic surveillance or any other person whose communications or activities were subject to electronic surveillance," may bring a FISA claim against any person who committed a FISA violation; the aggrieved person is entitled to recover actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. However, FISA allows a violator to assert as a defense that he "was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." For the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse collection of FISA matters, see our special collection.

On February 22, 2011, three individuals filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California as a putative class action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), two FBI officers in their official capacities, and five FBI agents in their individual capacities (agent defendants). The complaint alleged that the FBI used a paid confidential informant to infiltrate several mosques in Southern California and to "indiscriminately collect personal information on hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent Muslim Americans." The plaintiffs alleged that the FBI used the informant to gather information as part of a counterterrorism investigation known as Operation Flex, which was "a dragnet surveillance" program, the "central feature" of which was to "gather information on Muslims." The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, alleging violations of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1), and FISA (50 U.S.C. § 1810). The plaintiffs defined their class as “[a]ll individuals targeted by Defendants for surveillance or information-gathering through the informant and Operation Flex, on account of their religion, and about whom the FBI thereby gathered personally identifiable information," and sought injunctive relief for the individual plaintiffs and the class, and damages for themselves as individuals.

On April 11, 2011, the parties stipulated to defer class certification proceedings until after the parties filed any initial dispositive motions, and United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney approved the stipulation on April 20, 2011. On August 1, 2011 and August 9, 2011, the government and agent defendants, respectively, moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including failure to state a claim, qualified immunity, and state secrets privilege. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on September 13, 2011, which the government and agent defendants again moved to dismiss on November 4, 2011 and November 11, 2011.

On August 14, 2012, Judge Carney issued two orders. In one order, Judge Carney dismissed the FISA claim against the government, concluding that Congress did not waive sovereign immunity for damages under that statute. However, Judge Carney permitted the plaintiffs' FISA claim against the agent defendants to proceed, rejecting the agent defendants' claim of qualified immunity. 885 F. Supp. 2d 978. In the other order, Judge Cormac dismissed all the other claims in the case on the basis of state secrets privilege. Judge Cormac found that, based on the classified declarations and supplemental memorandum submitted by the government, the "subject matter of this action, Operation Flex, involves intelligence that, if disclosed, would significantly compromise national security." Since the government would need to rely on the privileged material to defend against the plaintiffs' claims, "the risk of disclosure that further litigation would engender [could not] be averted through protective orders or restrictions on testimony." 884 F. Supp. 2d 1022.

On October 12, 2012, the agent defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity on the plaintiffs' FISA claim to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 2, 2012, Judge Carney approved the the parties' stipulation to stay all further proceedings related to the remaining FISA claim pending the agent defendants' appeal. On December 3, 2012, Judge Carney entered a partial final judgment, at plaintiffs' request, to allow the plaintiffs to immediately appeal the court's dismissal of the majority of their claims. On January 3, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed their dismissed claims to the Ninth Circuit.

On April 2, 2014, the appeals court granted a joint motion to consolidate both the plaintiffs and agent defendants' appeals. On November 24, 2014, the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff appellants. On February 28, 2019, a panel of the Ninth Circuit (Marsha S. Berzon and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges and George Caram Steeh III, Senior District Judge) affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's orders and remanded the case. In analyzing the plaintiffs' FISA claim against the agent defendants, the panel considered separately three categories of audio and video surveillance alleged in the complaint: (1) recordings made by the informant of conversations to which he was party; (2) recordings made by the informant of conversations to which he was not a party; and (3) recordings made by devices planted by FBI agents. The panel found that the agent defendants were entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds as to the first two categories of surveillance. However, as to the third category of surveillance, the court found that two of the agent defendants, who had directly supervised the informant and were responsible for planting the devices, were not entitled to qualified immunity. The other three agent defendants, who generally supervised the other two agent defendants, were entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint did not "plausibly allege their personal involvement with respect to the planted devices." The panel then addressed the remaining claims which had all been previously dismissed pursuant to the state secrets privilege. It held that the district court had erred in determining sua sponte that particular claims warranted dismissal under the state secrets privilege. The panel found that Congress intended FISA to displace the state secrets privilege and the common law dismissal remedy with respect to electronic surveillance. Therefore, FISA procedures, which involves in camera and ex parte review by district courts, rather than a dismissal, were appropriate when "an aggrieved person affirmatively challenges, in any civil case, the legality of electronic surveillance or its use in litigation, whether the challenge is under FISA itself, the Constitution, or any other law." After holding that the state secrets privilege did not warrant dismissal of this litigation in its entirety, the panel remanded the case back to the district court to be analyzed under the FISA procedures. 916 F.3d 1202.

After issuing the opinion, the Ninth Circuit received a request to rehear the case en banc. The measure failed to receive the majority of the votes of the judges on the Ninth Circuit, so the case returned to the District Court for further review.

Judges in favor and opposed to rehearing the case en banc released dissents and concurrences respectively; these were added to the February 2019 opinion in a July 20, 2020 revised opinion. The dissent, written by Judge Patrick Bumatay, feared that replacing the state secrets doctrine with FISA would lead to rampant disclosure of state secrets protected by FISA in cases where electronic surveillance is an issue. Instead, he argued that the two doctrines should coexist, saying that FISA should only come up when a party contests the admissibility of a FISA application or warrant, and the state secrets doctrine should frame analysis in any other context. The concurrence, written by Judge Gould, took issue with the dissent's broad characterization of their opinion. He stated that this was a narrow, remedy-based case, turning on whether a civil case should be dismissed because of confidential information protected under FISA, which is what the District Court did, or if the case could proceed without telling the plaintiffs about the confidential information presented against them through the in camera review process. He stressed that the information would still be protected, just under a different framework than the state secrets doctrine. 965 F.3d 1015.

The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on December 18, 2020. They requested that the Supreme Court review the Ninth Circuit's holding that FISA should replace the state secrets doctrine, and argued that FISA should supersede the state secrets doctrine only in instances when the admissibility of a FISA warrant or application is involved, much like the way Judge Bumatay suggested in his dissent. Responses to the petition are due on January 19, 2020; the case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Lisa Limb (7/29/2020)

Ellen Aldin (12/21/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4146761/parties/yassir-fazaga-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/


Judge(s)

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Bumatay, Patrick Joseph None (Maryland)

Carney, Cormac J. (California)

Gould, Ronald Murray (Washington)

Kenton, Victor B. (California)

Steeh, George Caram III (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California)

Bibring, Peter (California)

Busa, Joseph F. (District of Columbia)

Clark, Jeffrey Bossert (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Bumatay, Patrick Joseph None (Maryland)

Carney, Cormac J. (California)

Gould, Ronald Murray (Washington)

Kenton, Victor B. (California)

Steeh, George Caram III (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California)

Bibring, Peter (California)

Busa, Joseph F. (District of Columbia)

Clark, Jeffrey Bossert (District of Columbia)

Ellis, Jonathan Y. (District of Columbia)

Joshi, Sopan (District of Columbia)

Kneedler, Edwin S. (District of Columbia)

Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)

Piovia-Scott, Joshua (California)

Qazi, Ameena Mirza (California)

Salahi, Reem (California)

Shabaik, Amr (California)

Stormer, Dan Lewis (California)

Swingle, Sharon (District of Columbia)

Tajsar, Mohammad K. (California)

Wall, Jeffrey B. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Carroll, Catherine M.A. (District of Columbia)

Coppolino, Anthony J. (District of Columbia)

Cote, Alexander H. (California)

DeMott, Joseph J (District of Columbia)

Handler, Stephen E. (District of Columbia)

Lee, Lynn Y. (District of Columbia)

Li, Peiyin Patty (California)

Lowder, Amos Alexander (California)

Machala, Angela M. (California)

Michael, Brian R. (California)

Moran, Katie (California)

Nichols, Carl John (District of Columbia)

Owens, Annie L. (District of Columbia)

Scheper, David C. (California)

Shapiro, Howard M. (District of Columbia)

Slade, W. Scooter (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Cohn, Cindy A. (California)

Crocker, Andrew (California)

Greene, David Allen (California)

Moore, Thomas Edward III (California)

Opsahl, Kurt Bradford (California)

Rumold, Mark Thomas (California)

Tien, Lee (California)

Tyre, James Samuel (California)

Wiebe, Richard R. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

8:11-cv-00301

0:12-56867

0:12-56874

0:13-55017

Docket [PACER]

Oct. 9, 2020

Oct. 9, 2020

Docket
1

8:11-cv-00301

Class Action Complaint

Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

Complaint
12

8:11-cv-00301

Order Re: Stipulation to Defer Class Certification Proceedings

April 20, 2011

April 20, 2011

Order/Opinion
49

8:11-cv-00301

First Amended Complaint (Part 1 of 3)

Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

Complaint
49

8:11-cv-00301

First Amended Complaint (Part 2 of 3)

Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

Complaint
49

8:11-cv-00301

First Amended Complaint (Part 3 of 3)

Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

Complaint
101

8:13-cv-00301

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Based on the State Secrets Privilege

884 F.Supp.2d 1022

Aug. 14, 2012

Aug. 14, 2012

Order/Opinion
102

8:11-cv-00301

Order Granting in Part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' FISA Claim

885 F.Supp.2d 978

Aug. 14, 2012

Aug. 14, 2012

Order/Opinion
BL-32

8:11-cv-00301

Brief Amicus Curiae of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Plaintiff-Appellants

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Nov. 24, 2014

Nov. 24, 2014

Pleading / Motion / Brief
BL-1214

8:11-cv-00301

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

916 F.3d 1202, 2019 U.S.App.LEXIS 6028

Feb. 28, 2019

Feb. 28, 2019

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4146761/yassir-fazaga-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/

Last updated Aug. 5, 2022, 3:11 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller, Pat Rose, J Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls. Case assigned to Judge Josephine Staton Tucker for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton.(Filing fee $ 350 Paid). Jury Demanded. Filed by Plaintiffs Ali Uddin Malik, Yasser Abdelrahim and Yassir Fazaga.(lwag) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

RECAP

60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery)1 as to Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller, Pat Rose, J Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls. (lwag)

Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

PACER

60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller, Pat Rose, J Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls. (lwag)

Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

PACER
2

NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga and Ali Uddin Malik. (lwag) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

PACER
3

NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga and Ali Uddin Malik. Related Case(s): 8:07-cv-01088-CJC(ANx). (lwag) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

PACER
4

ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08-05 -Related Case- filed. Related Case No: SACV07-01088 CJC (ANx). Case transferred from Judge Josephine Staton Tucker to Judge Cormac J. Carney for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge SACV11-00301 CJC (VBKx). Signed by Judge Cormac J. Carney. (dro) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

Feb. 24, 2011

Feb. 24, 2011

PACER
5

NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Anthony Joseph Coppolino on behalf of Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller (Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

PACER
6

NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Lynn Y Lee on behalf of Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller (Lee, Lynn) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

PACER
7

NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. Related Case(s): 10-102 (Lee, Lynn) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

RECAP
8

RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malikto Notice of Related Case(s) 7 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

PACER
9

ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08-05 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge James V. Selna, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. SACV10-00102 JVS (RNBx) (ade) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

April 6, 2011

April 6, 2011

PACER
10

STIPULATION for Order To Defer Class Certification Proceedings filed by plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re: Stipulation to Defer Class Certification Proceedings)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

1 Proposed Order Re: Stipulation to Defer Class Certification Proceedings

View on PACER

April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011

PACER
11

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to June 7, 2011 re Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re: Stipulation to Extend Time for Initial Response to Complaint)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

1 Proposed Order re: Stipulation to Extend Time for Initial Response to Complaint

View on PACER

April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011

PACER
12

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, re Stipulation to Defer Class Certification Proceedings 10 : Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs are relieved from the requirement set forth in Local Rule 23-3 that a motion for class certification be filed within 90 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action. (See document for further details.) (rla) (Entered: 04/21/2011)

April 20, 2011

April 20, 2011

PACER
13

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney granting Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer 11 : Court hereby ORDERS that: (i) the date on which the Official Capacity Defendants must respond to the Complaint shall be extended to June 7, 2011; and that (ii) the date on which Defendant Stephen Tidwell must respond to the Complaint shall also be extended to June 7, 2011. (rla) (Entered: 04/21/2011)

April 20, 2011

April 20, 2011

PACER
14

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to July 22, 2011 filed by defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint and Briefing Schedule)(Michael, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2011)

1 Proposed Order re Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint

View on PACER

May 27, 2011

May 27, 2011

PACER
15

NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Peiyin Patty Li on behalf of Defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls (Li, Peiyin) (Entered: 05/27/2011)

May 27, 2011

May 27, 2011

PACER
16

ORDER granting Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer (More than 30 days) 14, defendant Paul Allen answer due 7/22/2011; Kevin Armstrong answer due 7/22/2011; Federal Bureau of Investigation answer due 7/22/2011; Steven M Martinez answer due 7/22/2011; Robert Mueller answer due 7/22/2011; Pat Rose answer due 7/22/2011; J Stephen Tidwell answer due 7/22/2011; Barbara Walls answer due 7/22/2011 by Judge Cormac J. Carney (twdb) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

May 31, 2011

May 31, 2011

PACER
17

PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ali Uddin Malik, Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, upon Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation served on 3/3/2011, answer due 7/22/2011; Steven M Martinez served on 3/3/2011, answer due 7/22/2011; Robert Mueller served on 3/3/2011, answer due 7/22/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Pat Myles. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to illegible. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit POS Atty General, # 2 Exhibit POS Govt. Defendants)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

1 Exhibit POS Atty General

View on PACER

2 Exhibit POS Govt. Defendants

View on PACER

June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

PACER
18

WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by plaintiff Ali Uddin Malik, Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga. upon J Stephen Tidwell waiver sent by Plaintiff on 3/3/2011, answer due 7/22/2011. Waiver of Service signed by J. Stephen Tidwell. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

PACER
19

PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ali Uddin Malik, Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, upon Plaintiff Paul Allen served on 4/8/2011, answer due 7/22/2011; Kevin Armstrong served on 4/8/2011, answer due 7/22/2011; Pat Rose served on 4/8/2011, answer due 7/22/2011; Barbara Walls served on 4/8/2011, answer due 7/22/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Kimberly Harberson, Clerk authorized to accept service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

PACER
20

APPLICATION for attorney Howard M. Shapiro to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE PAID.) filed by Defendant J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. Lodged Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(nbo) (Entered: 06/09/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

PACER
21

APPLICATION for attorney Annie L. Owens to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE PAID) filed by Defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. (nbo) (Entered: 06/09/2011)

June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

PACER
22

APPLICATION for attorney Carl J. Nichols to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE PAID) filed by Defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. Lodged Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(nbo) (Entered: 06/09/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

PACER
23

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by Defendant J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order RE: Extension of Time for Defendants to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint and Request for Extension of Page Limits)(Michael, Brian) (Entered: 07/19/2011)

1 Proposed Order RE: Extension of Time for Defendants to Answer or Otherwise Respo

View on PACER

July 19, 2011

July 19, 2011

PACER
24

NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Alexander H Cote counsel for Defendant Pat Rose. Adding Alexander H. Cote as attorney as counsel of record for Defendants Pat Rose, Kevin Armstrong and Paul Allen for the reason indicated in the G-06 Notice. Filed by Defendant Pat Rose, Kevin Armstrong, Paul Allen (Cote, Alexander) (Entered: 07/19/2011)

July 19, 2011

July 19, 2011

PACER
25

NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Amos Alexander Lowder counsel for Defendant Pat Rose. Adding Amos A. Lowder as attorney as counsel of record for Defendants Pat Rose, Kevin Armstrong and Paul Allen for the reason indicated in the G-06 Notice. Filed by Defendants Pat Rose, Kevin Armstrong and Paul Allen (Lowder, Amos) (Entered: 07/19/2011)

July 19, 2011

July 19, 2011

PACER
26

ORDER granting Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint 23 by Judge Cormac J. Carney: (1) U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of FBI and Robert Mueller and Steven M. Martinez, deadline to file its contemplated motion to dismiss shall be extended until 7/26/11; the time for J. Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls, Pat Rose, Kevin Armstrong, and Paul Allen to file their motions to dismiss shall be extended until 8/2/11 at 5:00 p.m. PDT; the time for Plaintiffs to file opposition briefs to all Defendants' motions shall be extended until 10/7/11; and the time for all Defendants to file their reply briefs shall be extended until 10/21/11; (2) That the date for a hearing on all Defendants' motions to dismiss shall be 11/7/11 at 1:30 p.m.; (3) That the time for Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 15(a)(1)(B) as to all Defendants shall be 21 days from the date the individual-capacity Defendants file their motions to dismiss; and (4) That the parties' briefs in support of or in opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss shall not exceed 35 pages. (rla) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

July 20, 2011

July 20, 2011

PACER
27

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney: granting 20 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Howard M. Shapiro on behalf of J. Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Wells, designating Brian R. Michael as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

PACER
28

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney: granting 21 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Annie L. Owens on behalf of J. Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Wells, designating Brian R. Michael as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

PACER
29

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney: granting 22 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney CArl J. Nichols on behalf of J. Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Wells, designating Brian R. Michael as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

PACER
30

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Anthony J. Coppolino, U.S. Department of Justice, # 2 Proposed Order)(Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

1 Declaration Declaration of Anthony J. Coppolino, U.S. Department of Justice

View on PACER

2 Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 25, 2011

July 25, 2011

PACER
31

ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TOCOMPLAINT; REVISION TO BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE by Judge Cormac J. Carney: This Court hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The time for DOJ to file its motion to dismiss shall be extended until August 1, 2011; the time for the individual-capacity defendants to file their motions to dismiss shall be extended until August 9, 2011; the time for plaintiffs to file opposition briefs to all defendants motions shall be extended until October 14, 2011; and the time for all defendants to file their reply briefs shall be extended until October 28, 2011. (see document for details) (mu) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

July 26, 2011

July 26, 2011

PACER
32

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case and for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. Motion set for hearing on 11/14/2011 at 01:30 PM before Judge Cormac J. Carney. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christopher N. Morin, FBI, # 2 Appendix Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Declaration Attorney General Eric H. Holder)(Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

1 Declaration Christopher N. Morin, FBI

View on RECAP

2 Appendix Statement of Material Facts

View on RECAP

3 Declaration Attorney General Eric H. Holder

View on RECAP

Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

RECAP
33

DECLARATION of Mark F. Giuliano, Federal Bureau of Investigation in Support of MOTION to Dismiss Case and for Summary Judgment 32 filed by Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

RECAP
34

EXHIBIT 1-3 to MOTION to Dismiss Case and for Summary Judgment 32 Exhibits to Public Declaration of Mark F. Giuliano, Federal Bureau of Investigation filed by Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

RECAP
35

NOTICE OF LODGING filed Notice of Lodging of Classified In Camera, Ex Parte Declaration of Mark F. Giuliano, Federal Bureau of Investigation re MOTION to Dismiss Case and for Summary Judgment 32 (Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

PACER
36

NOTICE OF LODGING filed Notice of Lodging of Classified In Camera, Ex Parte Supplemental Memorandum by Government Defendants re MOTION to Dismiss Case and for Summary Judgment 32 (Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Aug. 1, 2011

Aug. 1, 2011

PACER
37

NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney David C Scheper on behalf of Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Pat Rose (Scheper, David) (Entered: 08/03/2011)

Aug. 3, 2011

Aug. 3, 2011

PACER
38

NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Angela Machala on behalf of Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Pat Rose (Machala, Angela) (Entered: 08/03/2011)

Aug. 3, 2011

Aug. 3, 2011

PACER
39

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Staying Review of Defendants' Ex Parte In Camera Submissions filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 08/04/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 4, 2011

Aug. 4, 2011

RECAP
40

NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Katie Moran on behalf of Defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls (Moran, Katie) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

Aug. 9, 2011

Aug. 9, 2011

PACER
41

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint ; Notice of Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants FBI, Robert Mueller, and Steven Martinez and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls filed by defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Pat Rose. Motion set for hearing on 11/14/2011 at 01:30 PM before Judge Cormac J. Carney. (Scheper, David) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

Aug. 9, 2011

Aug. 9, 2011

RECAP
42

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. Motion set for hearing on 11/14/2011 at 01:30 PM before Judge Cormac J. Carney. (Li, Peiyin) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

Aug. 9, 2011

Aug. 9, 2011

RECAP
43

OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Staying Review of Defendants' Ex Parte In Camera Submissions 39 filed by Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lee, Lynn) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

Aug. 10, 2011

Aug. 10, 2011

PACER
44

JOINDER in EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Staying Review of Defendants' Ex Parte In Camera Submissions 39 JOINDER TO GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by Defendant Pat Rose. (Cote, Alexander) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

Aug. 10, 2011

Aug. 10, 2011

PACER
45

NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Pat Rose. correcting MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint ; Notice of Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants FBI, Robert Mueller, and Steven Martinez and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint ; Notice of Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants FBI, Robert Mueller, and Steven Martinez and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls 41 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - CORRECTED Motion to Dismiss)(Machala, Angela) (Entered: 08/11/2011)

1 Exhibit 1 - CORRECTED Motion to Dismiss

View on PACER

Aug. 11, 2011

Aug. 11, 2011

PACER
46

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney: DENYING 39 Ex Parte Application: Plaintiffs' ex parte application is DENIED. The Court needs to consider the Government's classified submissions in order to conduct a "searching judicial review" of the basis for and merits of the Government's assertion of the state secrets privilege. (rla) (Entered: 08/11/2011)

Aug. 11, 2011

Aug. 11, 2011

PACER
47

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by Plaintiff Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 08/29/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

PACER
48

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, granting Stipulation for Extension of Time to Amend 47 . Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint shall be due on September 13, 2011; See order for more information. (twdb) (Entered: 08/30/2011)

Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

PACER
49

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller, Pat Rose, J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls, Does 1-10; amending Complaint - (Discovery) 1 ; filed by plaintiffs Ali Uddin Malik, Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga (Attachments: # 1 PART 2, # 2 PART 3)(rla) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/15/2011: # 3 SUMMONS ISSUED) (rla). (Entered: 09/14/2011)

1 PART 2

View on RECAP

2 PART 3

View on RECAP

3 SUMMONS ISSUED

View on PACER

Sept. 13, 2011

Sept. 13, 2011

RECAP

60 DAY Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint, 49 as to defendant(s) United States of America. (rla)

Sept. 14, 2011

Sept. 14, 2011

PACER
50

NOTICE OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, re Amended Complaint, 49 served on 9/13/2011. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 09/21/2011)

Sept. 21, 2011

Sept. 21, 2011

PACER
51

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response to First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 09/30/2011)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Sept. 30, 2011

Sept. 30, 2011

PACER
52

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, granting Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 51 . (twdb) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

PACER
53

PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ali Uddin Malik, Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, upon Defendant United States of America served on 9/15/2011, answer due 11/14/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Pat Myles. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Unknown. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Unknown. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Receipt for Mail to AG)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/07/2011)

1 Exhibit Receipt for Mail to AG

View on PACER

Oct. 7, 2011

Oct. 7, 2011

PACER
54

NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Stephen E Handler on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Handler, Stephen) (Entered: 11/03/2011)

Nov. 3, 2011

Nov. 3, 2011

RECAP
55

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Amended Complaint and for Summary Judgment filed by Government Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller, United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 1/30/2012 at 01:30 PM before Judge Cormac J. Carney. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christopher N. Morin, Federal Bureau of Investigation, # 2 Appendix Statement of Undisputed Facts)(Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 11/04/2011)

1 Declaration Christopher N. Morin, Federal Bureau of Investigation

View on PACER

2 Appendix Statement of Undisputed Facts

View on PACER

Nov. 4, 2011

Nov. 4, 2011

RECAP
56

NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Classified Supplemental Declaration of Mark F. Giuliano, Federal Bureau of Investigation for In Camera, Ex Parte Review re MOTION to Dismiss Case Amended Complaint and for Summary Judgment 55 (Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 11/04/2011)

Nov. 4, 2011

Nov. 4, 2011

PACER
57

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls filed by Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Pat Rose. Motion set for hearing on 1/30/2012 at 01:30 PM before Judge Cormac J. Carney. (Scheper, David) (Entered: 11/11/2011)

Nov. 11, 2011

Nov. 11, 2011

RECAP
58

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. Motion set for hearing on 1/30/2012 at 01:30 PM before Judge Cormac J. Carney. (Li, Peiyin) (Entered: 11/11/2011)

Nov. 11, 2011

Nov. 11, 2011

RECAP
59

NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION to Dismiss Case 57 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1-1 No Certification of Interested Parties and or no copies. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (db) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

Nov. 15, 2011

Nov. 15, 2011

PACER
60

NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint 58 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1-1 No Certification of Interested Parties and or no copies. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (db) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

Nov. 15, 2011

Nov. 15, 2011

PACER
61

STIPULATION for Order to Allow Parties to Combine Opposition or Reply Briefs on Motions to Dismiss filed by plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Allowing Parties to Combine Oppositions Or Reply Briefs on Motions to Dismiss)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

1 Proposed Order Allowing Parties to Combine Oppositions Or Reply Briefs on Motion

View on PACER

Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

PACER
62

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, ALLOWING PARTIES TO COMBINE OPPOSITION OR REPLY BRIEFS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS re Stipulation 61 : In filing their oppositions to Defendants' dispositive motions challenging their First Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 55, 57, and 58), Plaintiffs may combine any or all of their opposition briefs, or re-allocate pages between briefs, so long as the total number of pages of all opposition briefs filed does not exceed the total of 125 pages allowed in the Court's orders of July 20, 2011 (Dkt. No. 26) and October 3, 2011 (Dkt. No. 48). (See document for further details.) (rla) (Entered: 12/19/2011)

Dec. 16, 2011

Dec. 16, 2011

PACER
63

In Opposition re: MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Ba MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Ba 57, MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint 58 filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Claims Chart)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

1 Attachment A - Claims Chart

View on PACER

Dec. 23, 2011

Dec. 23, 2011

PACER
64

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case Amended Complaint and for Summary Judgment 55 filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Genuine Issues)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

1 Statement of Genuine Issues

View on RECAP

Dec. 23, 2011

Dec. 23, 2011

RECAP
65

DECLARATION of Ahilan Arulanantham In Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Ba MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Ba 57, MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint 58, MOTION to Dismiss Case Amended Complaint and for Summary Judgment 55 filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit #1 - #3)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

1 Exhibit #1 - #3

View on PACER

Dec. 23, 2011

Dec. 23, 2011

RECAP
66

DECLARATION of Craig Monteilh In Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Ba MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Ba 57, MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint 58, MOTION to Dismiss Case Amended Complaint and for Summary Judgment 55 filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

Dec. 23, 2011

Dec. 23, 2011

RECAP
67

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion 64, Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 63 filed by defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Lynn) (Entered: 01/06/2012)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Jan. 6, 2012

Jan. 6, 2012

PACER
68

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, Extending Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 67 . It Is Ordered that Defendants respective replies to plaintiffs oppositions shall be due on January 20, 2012; A hearing on pending dispositive motions shall be held on February 10, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. ( Motion set for hearing on 2/10/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Cormac J. Carney.) (twdb) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

Jan. 10, 2012

Jan. 10, 2012

PACER
69

REPLY support MOTION to Dismiss Case Amended Complaint and for Summary Judgment 55 Government Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Compaint and for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller, United States of America. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 01/20/2012)

Jan. 20, 2012

Jan. 20, 2012

PACER
70

REPLY In Support Of MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Ba MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Class Action Complaint and Joinder in Motions to Dismiss by (1) Defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller and Steven Martinez, and (2) Defendants Stephen Tidwell and Ba 57 filed by Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Pat Rose. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment: 11/3/11 Opinion in Mirmehdi v. United States)(Scheper, David) (Entered: 01/20/2012)

1 Attachment: 11/3/11 Opinion in Mirmehdi v. United States

View on PACER

Jan. 20, 2012

Jan. 20, 2012

PACER
71

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION to Dismiss Case First Amended Complaint 58 filed by Defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. (Li, Peiyin) (Entered: 01/20/2012)

Jan. 20, 2012

Jan. 20, 2012

PACER
72

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS REFERRAL OF MATTER FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: At the request of the parties, this matter has been referred to the Honorable David T. Bristow, United States Magistrate Judge for purposes of settlement proceedings. The Honorable Victor B. Kenton shall remain as the Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter in all other respects. The parties are advised that Judge Bristow has agreed to act as the settlement officer in this matter. Counsel are directed to contact Judge Bristows Court Room Deputy, Deb Taylor at (951) 328-4466 for purposes of scheduling a settlement conference. (am) (Entered: 02/03/2012)

Feb. 2, 2012

Feb. 2, 2012

PACER
73

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF INDIVIDUAL-CAPACITY DEFENDANTS J. STEPHEN TIDWELL AND BARBARA WALLS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Michael, Brian) (Entered: 02/03/2012)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

Feb. 3, 2012

Feb. 3, 2012

PACER
74

Joint STIPULATION to Continue Motions Hearing from February 10, 2012 to April 20, 2012 filed by Government Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation, Steven M Martinez, Robert Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Coppolino, Anthony) (Entered: 02/06/2012)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

PACER
76

ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow.( Settlement Conference set for 3/29/2012 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow.) (mrgo) (Entered: 02/07/2012)

Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

PACER
75

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, CONTINUING HEARING DATE re Stipulation to Continue 74 : Court ORDERS that the hearing on the pending dispositive motions filed by all Defendants shall be continued to April 20, 2012 at 10 a.m. (rla) (Entered: 02/07/2012)

Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

PACER
77

CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls, identifying J Stephen Tidwell; Hudson Specialty Insurance Company; Barbara Walls. (Michael, Brian) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

RECAP
78

STIPULATION to Waive (Excuse) Attendance at Settlement Conference filed by Defendants Paul Allen, Kevin Armstrong, Pat Rose. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Scheper, David) (Entered: 03/27/2012)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

March 27, 2012

March 27, 2012

PACER
79

ORDER STIPULATION TO EXCUSE ATTENDANCE AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Having reviewed the stipulation and request by the parties to excuse the presence of Defendants Pat Rose, Kevin Armstrong, Paul Allen, J. Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls and Plaintiffs Ali Uddin Malik and Yasser AbdelRahim, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby EXCUSES Defendants Rose, Armstrong, Allen, Tidwell and Walls and Plaintiffs Malik and AbdelRahim from attendance at the March 29, 2012 Settlement Conference. 78 (am) (Entered: 03/27/2012)

March 27, 2012

March 27, 2012

PACER
80

MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Following consultation with the Court, and after significant discussionsbetween the Court and counsel, the parties were unable to agree upon settlement terms. The parties indicated that they would continue to discuss settlement terms, and would also provide tentative dates to the Court for a possible second settlement conference.Court Recorder: RS-4 03-29-12. (ad) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

March 29, 2012

March 29, 2012

PACER
81

STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on MTD from 04/20/2012 to 06/13/2012 filed by Plaintiff Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Continue Hearing on MTD)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

1 Proposed Order to Continue Hearing on MTD

View on PACER

April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012

PACER

SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow Second Settlement Conference set for 5/16/2012 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

PACER
82

ORDER RE CONTINUING APRIL 20, 2012 HEARING by Judge Cormac J. Carney, re Stipulation 81 : Court hereby ORDERS that the hearing on the pending dispositive motions filed by all Defendants shall be continued to June 13, 2012, at 10 a.m. (rla) (Entered: 04/13/2012)

April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

PACER

SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow Telephone Status Conference set for 5/3/2012 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

April 30, 2012

April 30, 2012

PACER
83

MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The Court and counsel discussed the status of settlement, as well as preparations for the upcoming settlement conference.Court Recorder: RS-4 03-29-12. (ad) (Entered: 05/04/2012)

May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

PACER

SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow previously scheduled for 5/16/12 9:30 a.m. has been rescheduled. Settlement Conference set for 5/16/2012 09:15 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

May 14, 2012

May 14, 2012

PACER
85

MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow:Following consultation with the Court, and after significant discussions between the Court and counsel, the parties were unable to agree upon settlement terms. The parties indicated that they would continue to discuss settlement terms, and would like to have a third settlement conference. The Court set a third settlement conference for May 31, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. without further notice. The Court encouraged counsel to continue to work towards a settlement, and offered to assist in any manner necessary, including engaging with the parties telephonically regarding settlement.Court Recorder: RS-4 03-32-12. (am) (Entered: 05/22/2012)

May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012

PACER
84

NOTICE filed by defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY OF INDIVIDUAL-CAPACITY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Michael, Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

PACER

SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow Third Settlement Conference previously scheduled for 5/31/12 9:30 a.m. has been rescheduled. Third Settlement Conference set for 6/14/2012 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012

PACER
86

Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on MTD from June 13, 2012 to July 19, 2012 filed by Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012

PACER
87

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney, granting Stipulation to Continue 86 . The hearings re Motion originally scheduled have been rescheduled re 55 .( Motion set for hearing on 7/19/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Cormac J. Carney.) (twdb) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

PACER

SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow Telephone Conference set for 6/12/2012 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. Please dial the telephone number below during the reservation date and time: Call-in Number:213.894.0800, Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below: Meeting ID:1114#User Password:3333#THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

June 11, 2012

June 11, 2012

PACER
88

MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The case was called for a telephonic status conference. Attorneys Peter Bibring, Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Laura Moran, and Reem Salahi appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Assistant United States Attorneys Anthony Joseph Coppolino and Lynn Y. Lee appeared on behalf of defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, and Steven M. Martinez. Assistant United States Attorney Stephen E. Handler appeared on behalf of the United States of America. Attorneys Brian R. Michael, Carl J. Nichols, Peiyin Patty Li, and Katie Moran appeared on behalf of defendants J. Stephen Tidwell and Barbara Walls. Attorney Alexander H. Cote appeared on behalf of defendants Pat Rose, Kevin Armstrong, and Paul Allen. Also present were Federal Bureau of Investigation Attorneys Ted Schwartz and Kim Schwartz. Following discussion with counsel, the Court granted the request to continue the settlement conference that was previously scheduled for June 14, 2012 to June 19, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.Court Recorder: RS-4 06-12-12. (am) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

June 12, 2012

June 12, 2012

PACER

SCHEDULING NOTICE of Settlement Conference by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow previously scheduled for 06/19/2012 at 9:00 a.m. has been rescheduled. Settlement Conference set for 6/28/2012 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dsb) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

PACER
89

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by defendants J Stephen Tidwell, Barbara Walls. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Michael, Brian) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

PACER
92

MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: A third settlement conference was held as previously scheduled. Attorneys Peter Bibring, Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Laura Moran and Reem Salahi, appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Assistant United States Attorney Anthony Joseph Coppolino appeared on behalf defendants United States of America, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, and Steven M. Martinez. Also present was Federal Bureau of Investigation Attorneys Ted Schwartz. Following consultation with the Court, and after significant discussions between the Court and counsel, the parties were unable to agree upon settlement terms. The parties indicated that they would continue to discuss settlement terms, and the Court set a telephonic status conference for Friday, July 6, 2012. The Court encouraged counsel to confer with their clients and continue to work towards a settlement, and offered to assist in any manner necessary, including engaging with the parties telephonically regarding settlement. However, the Court also indicated that the parties had until July 6, 2012, to agree to settle the matter or the Court would conclude the Courts settlement process.Court Recorder: RS-4 06-28-12. (am) (Entered: 07/03/2012)

June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

PACER
90

NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Dan Stormer counsel for Plaintiff Yassir Fazaga. Changing firm name to Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick LLP. Filed by plaintiff Yassir Fazaga, et al. (Stormer, Dan) (Entered: 06/29/2012)

June 29, 2012

June 29, 2012

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

National Security

Special Collection(s):

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- All Matters

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 22, 2011

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are three Muslim residents of Southern California.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Southern California

Hadsell, Stormer & Renick

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2674

FISA Title I Warrant (Electronic Surveillance), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1812

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Establishment Clause

Free Exercise Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General:

Confidentiality

Failure to supervise

Record-keeping

Records Disclosure

Search policies

Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues

Discrimination-basis:

Religion discrimination